Flash951 wrote:Because the fact that you choose the entry level Amiga model to be compared to the flag ship Atari model says it all.

Please, don't start again. The F030 was STE/MegaSTE sucessor. The true flag ship (a TT successor) was the never released Falcon040 because mearketin people in Atari were idiots

And also want to compare only the 3D speed.

Because OP wanted it so.

Answer: The Amiga 4000 has great expandability (32 bit slots -Zorro III, ISA, video slot. The Amiga 4000T has both built in Fast SCSI 2 controller and HD floppy (HD=the ones from Commodore. 1.8 MB), (I had one), the 4000 also had HD floppy.

That is not a much for that price, don't you think? The one truly highend component was the SCSI 53C710, but in 1994 and later most user would have rather a second IDE channel and ideally UDMA support. BTW, to make the HD floppy working the revolution speed had to be halved to allow functionality with the onboard DD controller. The floppy was thus half speed compared to normal floppy.

Comment Flash951 made over at EAB wrote:I agree with you Weeto. The Amiga is obviously a more advanced with more powerful features. But I see a lot of discussion threads at Atari forums etc. where the Atari ST fanatics argues the opposite. For me that is just as crazy as this thread. So I started this thread to be a little crazy back to the Atari ST infidels.

so i think that he is on a mission here, trying to make us see the light

Last edited by FedePede04 on Mon Feb 16, 2015 10:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

Atari will rule the world, long after man has disappeared

sometime my English is a little weird, Google translate is my best friend

I agree with you Weeto. The Amiga is obviously a more advanced with more powerful features. But I see a lot of discussion threads at Atari forums etc. where the Atari ST fanatics argues the opposite. For me that is just as crazy as this thread. So I started this thread to be a little crazy back to the Atari ST infidels.

I agree with you Weeto. The Amiga is obviously a more advanced with more powerful features. But I see a lot of discussion threads at Atari forums etc. where the Atari ST fanatics argues the opposite. For me that is just as crazy as this thread. So I started this thread to be a little crazy back to the Atari ST infidels.

just to feed you a little TROLL, the about is just plain wrong.there are maybe a couple of Atari Die hard fan here that will think that the Atari was superior to the Amiga, but most of us perfectly know that the Amiga was better then the Atari on some arrays, (eg. like low res 2D gfx / 2D games),but there was also Amiga people, that had a hard time seeing that Amiga also had flaws, and was not the best computer on all arrays , i don't know, if you know the type .

but please tell me what you are getting out of coming here and trolling, do you feel better when dooing it?.

normally i don't think that anyone should be ban for speaking out his believe, but you don't bring anything to the table, other than mine is bigger than yours. so i will also wrote for, you getting ban.

Last edited by FedePede04 on Mon Feb 16, 2015 7:13 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Atari will rule the world, long after man has disappeared

sometime my English is a little weird, Google translate is my best friend

Yes, it is so obivous that 2MB chipRAM is more advanced than 14MB, slower BUS is more advanced than a faster one, 256 colors are more advanced than 65536, planar is more advanced than chunky, TV is more advanced than VGA, 16bit/50KHz audio with 24bit processing is better than 8bit/28KHz, nothing is better than 16bit audio input, nothing is better than 32MHZ DSP, DD floppy is better than HD etc..And we didn't even started to compare the production software.

Yes, it is so obivous that 2MB chipRAM is more advanced than 14MB, slower BUS is more advanced than a faster one, 256 colors are more advanced than 65536, planar is more advanced than chunky, TV is more advanced than VGA, 16bit/50KHz audio with 24bit processing is better than 8bit/28KHz, nothing is better than 16bit audio input, nothing is better than 32MHZ DSP, DD floppy is better than HD etc..And we didn't even started to compare the production software.

Atari will rule the world, long after man has disappeared

sometime my English is a little weird, Google translate is my best friend

You can have more than 720kb on a Atari disk. It was the standard size so that it would be IBM-PC compatible which was GREAT! You have no problems to transfer files between them. I used to have an Atari at home and a PC at school but had no problems to transfer files. First time I got an Amiga I had to find someone who had a terminal program so I could transfer files thru a serial connection. Hopeless!But with special software you can use more than 800kb on Atari disks to.

Same processor on both machines so why do you say 16bit vs 32 bits?

Can you tell med which Amiga 1200 had 56MHz as standard?I didn't know the Amiga 1200 had a 24 bit palette?

Don't be ridiculous. Atari has HD floppy controller since Mega STE. TT anf F030 have even ED controller. Of course, you can format the floppy with 10 or 11 sectors to achieve higher capacity. No Amiga has true HD controller.

16 bit is better than 32 bit?

Neither AGA nor F030 is fully 32Bit. It is a mixed bag. The fact is the slowest 16bit bus to ChipRAM on F030 is slightly faster than Amiga one, and the 32Bit videobus is a alot faster. And the falcon subystem can be easily overclocked to 156% of the original speed.

And don't forget there were also machines like Medusa or Hades, that was similary priced as A4000 and later Milan that was significantly cheaper.

68030 is better than 68040 and 68060? (F030-A4000T)16 MHz is better than 56 Mhz (F030-A4000T)

This is silly. But if you want to compare the fastest possible solutions, then yes. Falcon + CT6x (68060 + SDRAM) is faster thany any amiga even in stock 66MHz setup. For most devices is not problem to run around 100MHz.

18 bit color palette is better than 24 bit color palette?

The pallete alone is useless if you have only 256 color mode. The 16bit colors are commonly used even today on PC.

14 MB RAM is better than 18 MB or 128 MB?

The 14MB chip RAM is better than 2MB ChipRAM and the 512MB FastRAM (CT6x) or 256MB FastRAM (TT) is better than 128MB.

You can have more than 720kb on a Atari disk. It was the standard size so that it would be IBM-PC compatible which was GREAT! You have no problems to transfer files between them. I used to have an Atari at home and a PC at school but had no problems to transfer files. First time I got an Amiga I had to find someone who had a terminal program so I could transfer files thru a serial connection. Hopeless!But with special software you can use more than 800kb on Atari disks to.

Same processor on both machines so why do you say 16bit vs 32 bits?

Can you tell med which Amiga 1200 had 56MHz as standard? Answer: No A1200 model, I replayed to the earlier question about what an Amiga 4000 can do. This was after I did questioned why do you want to compare the low end entry level Amiga 1200 to the flag ship of Atari models. (Amiga 4000T-060 tower model from Escom, for the 060 version there was the option of 50mhz or 56 mhz 68060)

I didn't know the Amiga 1200 had a 24 bit palette?

Yes, it has 24 bit palette, it also has HAM8 where 256 000 colours can be displayed at once, usable mostly for pictures and animation.

Don't be ridiculous. Atari has HD floppy controller since Mega STE. TT anf F030 have even ED controller. Of course, you can format the floppy with 10 or 11 sectors to achieve higher capacity. No Amiga has true HD controller.

16 bit is better than 32 bit?

Neither AGA nor F030 is fully 32Bit. It is a mixed bag. The fact is the slowest 16bit bus to ChipRAM on F030 is slightly faster than Amiga one, and the 32Bit videobus is a alot faster. And the falcon subystem can be easily overclocked to 156% of the original speed.

And don't forget there were also machines like Medusa or Hades, that was similary priced as A4000 and later Milan that was significantly cheaper.

68030 is better than 68040 and 68060? (F030-A4000T)16 MHz is better than 56 Mhz (F030-A4000T)

This is silly. But if you want to compare the fastest possible solutions, then yes. Falcon + CT6x (68060 + SDRAM) is faster thany any amiga even in stock 66MHz setup. For most devices is not problem to run around 100MHz.

18 bit color palette is better than 24 bit color palette?

The pallete alone is useless if you have only 256 color mode. The 16bit colors are commonly used even today on PC.

14 MB RAM is better than 18 MB or 128 MB?

The 14MB chip RAM is better than 2MB ChipRAM and the 512MB FastRAM (CT6x) or 256MB FastRAM (TT) is better than 128MB.

We are talking about stock production models.The Amiga 4000 and Amiga 4000T was production models available for the customers.Amgia 4000T was in production from 1994-1997.

This has nothing to do with the A4000. This thread is supposed to be discussing 3D performance of the Falcon and the A1200.

Flash951: I think you have misunderstood the context of the thread and seem to be still living 20 years in the past?

Normally I would offer the opportunity to apologise, however looking at your posts, you clearly joined with the sole intention of trolling this thread in the kind of fanatical approach I haven't witnessed since I was about 12. This is an Atari forum, naturally there will be a bias towards Atari. However, I think most of us here respect the abilities and understand the shortcomings of a myriad machines - Amiga included.

We don't tolerate trolls here at all.

Let's get back on topic please, I don't really want to lock what is essentially an interesting discussion.

Anima wrote:The Atari Falcon Blitter is running at 16 MHz which makes it (almost) twice as fast as the Atari STE Blitter. The true advantage is that programs can utilise the instruction cache while the Blitter is busy drawing pixels. One example is that the CPU calculates new Blitter setup parameters for each line to draw polygons or circles at maximum speed. This is one of the reasons why the Blitter is underrated (see the examples posted by Frank for other use cases).

This is super-interesting. I've always wondered about this particular possibility - keeping the code small enough to fit inside the cache while feeding the blitter, but all I've heard before is that the blitter is useless for anything but backwards compatibility.

shoggoth wrote:This is super-interesting. I've always wondered about this particular possibility - keeping the code small enough to fit inside the cache while feeding the blitter, but all I've heard before is that the blitter is useless for anything but backwards compatibility.Perhaps this could be something for another (interesting) thread.

I think the problem here was the fact it doesn't appear to be automatically faster for most typical tasks, because it was largely about backward compatibility, the continued support for bitplanes and the fact it didn't get in the way of anything else.

But it can indeed be made to operate faster for specific things, with some care. Anima's experiments are a great example of this. Worth looking at his 32-wide sprite optimization which uses the same effect.

I've had some success with it myself, but to a lesser extent in truecolour mode - it can still offer some benefit but it'a better at amortizing line setup for per-scanline bitplane ops. Still its one of those things which could do with more exploration.

68030 is better than 68040 and 68060? (F030-A4000T)16 MHz is better than 56 Mhz (F030-A4000T)

We are talking about stock production models.The Amiga 4000 and Amiga 4000T was production models available for the customers.Amgia 4000T was in production from 1994-1997.

The A4000T wasn't offered with a 68060 until 1995, 2 years after the Falcon had been discontinued. Hardly relevant to the discussion.

If you genuinely want to offer something valuable to the discussions on either site then please go ahead, but at least get your facts right, know your blitter from your copper, and realise that the rest of the Atari and Amiga communities got over this 20 years ago.

Flash951 wrote:Yes, it has 24 bit palette, it also has HAM8 where 256 000 colours can be displayed at once, usable mostly for pictures and animation.

Ham 8 is awful for animation as is ham 6. Sorry! Read the HRM to see why. Hint.. change one pixel and the colours bleed till a new base colour is selected. Compared to 16 bpp it's a bad joke. With 16 bpp any pixel can be any colour.